tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585102290497220203.post1358277606864729057..comments2016-08-22T03:18:21.226-07:00Comments on In Defense of Higher Education: Barber's DeliverologyDennis Loohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00967782105200012586noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585102290497220203.post-4353284752172115802010-01-27T15:00:58.747-08:002010-01-27T15:00:58.747-08:00Bob: Thank you so much for your detailed analysis....Bob: Thank you so much for your detailed analysis. The neoliberal approach that Barber exemplifies incorporates, as you say, an insensible use of non-comparable data, ripped out from the larger context, and a command approach that can only ultimately lead to what at least some of the CSU leaders openly envy, the University of Phoenix.Dennis Loohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00967782105200012586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585102290497220203.post-12249251017436097912010-01-27T01:51:13.961-08:002010-01-27T01:51:13.961-08:00Hi, Dennis
Excellent critique of a very flawed pl...Hi, Dennis<br /><br />Excellent critique of a very flawed plan.<br /><br />From my observation post as a Business Professor Emeritus,<br />"Deliverology" is another typical management consulting fad now being offered to our education bureaucrats.<br /> <br />A PowerPoint attached to the SF State Chapter e-mail is a classic example of a consultant who does not understand what he is talking about. Sir Michael Barber is advising CSU management on ways to deal with an "achievement gap": specifically, how to increase the percentage of entering freshmen who graduate within six years. Sir Michael does not put the goal in context. Instead he presents colorful charts that purport to show, among other things, that San Francisco State needs to increase its graduation rate from 42.4% to 50.6% in order to reach the top quartile of its peer group, and up to 55% to be in the top decile (PPTs #41 and #42). <br /><br />What do these numbers really mean? If only 42% of our 1st year entering students graduate within six years, does that show we've failed to teach them? Or does it mean that our admissions standards are too low and let in many who aren’t ready for college? Or is it just a statistical artifact, considering that 37.2% of those entering SF State transfer out to another university at some point, so don't graduate here. If a high graduation rate is really the ultimate goal of a university, why not just tell professors to give "A"s to everyone? If students really are "customers", why not sell them the diplomas and avoid the need for all that other boring classroom stuff?<br /><br />Let's look a little more closely at Sir Michael's source, The Education Trust website. We find our “peer group” includes 15 universities, six of which are in the CSU system. (It will be a little difficult for all six to be in the top quartile.) The top quartile and decile rates are skewed by the inclusion of Central Michigan University, a doctoral research campus. Sir Michael only looked at data for 2006: when we look further, we find that graduation rates at San Francisco State have improved markedly, from 32.1% in 2000 to 44.2% for 2007, the most recent year shown. And if Sir Michael had read the Education Trust definitions, he would have found that the graduation rates shown there do not include transfer students, even though his PowerPoint picture of the enrollment "pipeline", PPt #52 shows that more students transfer into the CSU than enter as freshmen, and that our transfer students have a 66% graduation rate.<br /><br />Sir Michael's faulty assumptions and mangled data segue into familiar CSU management themes. What are some key reasons for student attrition (PP #54)? "Poor advising" due to "Faculty Senate/union culture resists change" and "low expectations by faculty towards students". What key actions can increase graduation rates (PPt #59)? "Standardize courses" across the CSU system, "link learning outcomes to instructor evaluations", "operational optimization of curriculum" (whatever that means), and<br />"academic guidance - for profit model". PPT #73 illustrates the proposed "Delivery Chain": it runs from System CEOs through Presidents, Provosts and Deans to Faculty and Staff, with messages to (among other things): "Empower Deans and Dept. Chairs", "Academic Senate?" and "Make the case, for not just more work."<br /><br />Bob Daniels<br />* * * * * <br />“And so the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession. It was a great success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, "Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!" No one dared to admit that he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post? None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.”Bob Danielshttp://online.sfsu.edu/~rdaniels/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585102290497220203.post-34098356355410041292010-01-07T22:57:34.081-08:002010-01-07T22:57:34.081-08:00Thanks Patricia. This is a revealing article. Of c...Thanks Patricia. This is a revealing article. Of course, Sir Barber is responsible to a significant degree for the very problems that you cite, so I guess if he went home and concentrated on those problems instead of spreading the idiocy to the US, then he'd only make it worse!Dennis Loohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00967782105200012586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585102290497220203.post-58259666081610285982010-01-04T18:13:28.838-08:002010-01-04T18:13:28.838-08:00Sir Michael should perhaps stay home and take of t...Sir Michael should perhaps stay home and take of the situation that's growing in his own backyard. From The Guardian, 12/23/09:<br /><br />"Academics and vice-chancellors from across England's universities united today to oppose cuts announced yesterday of more than half a billion pounds from their budgets next year.<br /><br />Vice-chancellors warned of "severe pressures" that would compromise the quality of degrees while academic leaders said the cuts would lead to larger class sizes. . .Universities were also told to overhaul how they teach degrees, with an emphasis on offering shorter, two-year and flexible courses. The mounting pressure on universities' budgets makes it ever more likely that a review of student funding, currently under way, will conclude that students have to pay more than the current £3,225 annual fee for their degrees.<br /><br />Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers' union UCU, described it as a "kick in the teeth" for staff and students.<br /><br />"You cannot make these kinds of cuts and expect no consequences," she said. "We will see teachers on the dole, students in larger classes and a higher education sector unable to contribute as much to the economy or society. How all that marries up with a government that is pioneering a university sector more reliant on student feedback is beyond me."<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/23/academics-vice-chancellors-universities-mandelson<br /><br />Sound familiar? So go home Sir Michael and solve your own problems before trying to tell us how to solve ours. It would probably help us save an awful lot of money.Ballroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362064069612137470noreply@blogger.com